Villainous Company

1. The HVES have many times criticized both the NYT and Judy Miller for invoking a non-existent federal shield law as imaginary support for refusal to cooperate with Fitzgerald's investigation. I will give Novak this much: as we have said all along, very likely the only thing that kept him out of jail was that he played ball with Fitz. But we have absolutely no sympathy with this line of argument:

Novak says in the forthcoming column that he initially refused to reveal his sources in an October 2003 interview with three FBI officials. He says he remained reluctant to testify before Fitzgerald, even with the waivers the three officials had given the prosecutor, but that his lawyer told him he was sure to lose a costly legal battle and be jailed for contempt of court. Novak says he testified under subpoena before a grand jury a few weeks later, in February 2004, after reading a statement about his discomfort in discussing confidential sources.

According to Novak's column, he heroically overcame his initial reluctance after being advised by his attorney that he would surely lose a costly legal battle and, more importantly, that Fitzgerald already knew the names of his sources.

We don't mind goring a few conservative oxes here - hypocrisy seems to lie thick on the ground. Once more, with feeling: there is no federal shield law. And even if Novak did not, in his heart of hearts, believe a crime had been committed; even if no one in his right mind believed a crime had been committed, that determination was not his to make. He had no right to obstruct a federal grand jury. And let's not forget that the only reason he behaved any differently than dear sweet Judy Miller is that Herr Fitzgerald already had the goods; a little fact, the importance of which can hardly be overstated. Where did he get the goods? From whom, we ask?

In any event, the end does not justify the means even when you are a mean-spirited poopy headed conservative. That said, we applaud Mr. Novak for refusing to "out" his primary source to the media. He has absolutely no legal or moral duty to breach his either his personal promise of confidentiality to his source or grand jury secrecy, and we find it utterly hilarious that the press are howling for him to do so. Whatever, we wonder, happened to the Sanctity Of The Source?

Our bad. That only applies when the press is trying to protect bad guys from law enforcement.

2. Does anyone else find this intriguing?

In a syndicated column to be released Wednesday, Novak says he told Fitzgerald in early 2004 that Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow had confirmed information about Plame.

Contacted Tuesday night, Harlow declined to comment. But a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the matter denied that Harlow had been a confirming source for Novak on the story. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Harlow repeatedly tried to talk Novak out of running the information about Plame and that Harlow's efforts did not in any way constitute confirming Plame's CIA identity. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because Harlow may end up being a witness in a separate part of Fitzgerald's investigation, the upcoming criminal trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI.

What on earth was an official CIA spokesman doing confirming the employment status of a covert asset to a member of the media, we wonder? Back up a minute...

The columnist said he learned of Ms. Plame's CIA employment from a source he still refuses to publicly identify, and then confirmed with Mr. Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, whose roles in talking to Mr. Novak have been previously reported.

Mr. Novak said for the first time that prosecutors looking into the leaks already knew his sources when he agreed to disclose them.

Really? From whom? We all know Miller refused to cooperate. From the Post account cited earlier:

Harlow, who declined to comment yesterday, has told The Post that he challenged aspects of Novak's account three days before the column was published and warned the columnist that if he did write about Wilson's Niger trip, Plame's name should not be revealed. Novak said he has a different recollection of the conversation.

"I certainly wouldn't have used her name if anyone had indicated she might be in danger," Novak said.

Scooter Libby has been indicted, presumably because his accounts don't square with the rest of the record. Fitzgerald has also, presumably, deposed Harlow and Novak.

Question: if there is some kind of glaring contradiction between what Novak says and Harlow's account (in other words, a contradiction which indicates Novak is lying) would that not be the kind of thing Fitz would challenge aggressively? Yet he does not appear to have done so. Interesting.

3. And the spin continues... Kurtz style:

Novak triggered one of the capital's most tangled investigations with a July 2003 column reporting that Plame had suggested sending her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, to Niger to investigate whether Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain nuclear material from that country -- an unsupported claim that was included in President Bush's State of the Union speech.

Wow. Apparently the Post's archives are just as impenetrable to Mr. Kurtz as the TimesSelect Wall:

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address

Oh, and what about that Butler Report? Apparently Howie Kurtz has never heard of it:

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa was well-founded.

Professional journalism: don't try it at home.